On Aug 21, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> Matthias Felleisen skrev:
>> 1. I considered the idea of developing larceny modules inside of
>> DrS back in 2002. Then I learned more about Larceny and how small
>> it is. And we didn't have Eli's FFI yet for integrating Lareceny-
>> compiled modules back into PLT Scheme. Now this idea is worth
>> studying because you don't want to use Larceny for anything else
>> than ASM. But perhaps at that level it has value! (I'll talk to
>> Eli next week on this.)
>> 2. Yes, we could expand PLT Scheme to PLT Scheme [core] first but
>> even in this core language you have so many library calls and
>> extensions, resolution of semantic issues, etc, that NOW WATCH
>> -- compiling the rest in Larceny is either impossible or
>> Is it with-continuation-mark you are thinking of?
Actually Ryan moved that one into Larceny. But then there are
regexps, custodians, wills (not lower-case W), executioners,
inspectors, lieutenants, captains, majors, generals, and a few more
friends.
>> -- it doesn't produce code that is faster than PLT Scheme and
>> faithful to its semantics.
>> In a Larceny-as-ASM world it makes sense to tolerate a slightly
> different semantics to gain speed.
Are you willing to get #t instead of #f? 5 instead of 42? 'hello
instead of "world"? -- Matthias